■■■■■■■■BBBBmBBBBIBi^BB^BBBHMBBI 


GIL 


-/<■    're    "A"     TC     "C     a-     -w 


The  Relations  of  the  Medical  to 
the  Legal  Profession 


m-K^/osa 


<z3ZJ 


Columbia  Stotoersitp 

College  of  ^fjpgictans  ano  burgeon* 
Htbrarp 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons 


http://www.archive.org/details/relationsofmedicOOgilm 


THE    RELATIONS 


Petol  to  Hit  J^pl  |r0fcra. 


THE    RELATIONS 


tYml  iff  %  UepI  irffteiffn: 


BEING    THK 


INTRODUCTORY  ADDRESS 


DELIVERED    AT    THE 


OPENING  OF  THE  FIFTY-FIRST  SESSION 

OF   THE 

COLLEGE  OF  PHYSICIANS  AND  SURGEONS,  OF  NEW  YORK, 

OCTOBER    20,    1856, 


CHANDLER   R.    GILMAN,    M.  D. 

Professor   of  Obstetrics   and    of  Medical  Jurisprudence   in  the   College. 


PUBLISHED    BY    REQOEST     OF    THE    CLASS. 


NEW     YORK: 

13  A  K  E  R     &     G  O  L)  W  I  N  ,     PHIN  T  E  R  S  , 
CORNER    NASSAU     AND    SPRUCE    BTRBBTBi 

1  8  5  8  . 


'     f 


ci 


At  a  meeting  of  Class  of  1856  and  1857,  of  the  College  of  Physicians  and 
Surgeons,  held  November  19tb,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Foster  Swift,  Mr.  R.  H.  Hin- 
man  was  nominated  to  the  chair.     The  following  resolutions  were  then  adopted  : 

1st.  To  appoint  a  Committee  to  confer  and  request  the  manuscript  of  Prof. 
Chandler  R.  Oilman's  Introductory  Address  before  the  Class,  on  October  20th, 
for  publication. 

2d.  That  Messrs.  Banks,  Dana,  Bird,  Crook,  and  Schmidt,  be  that  Committee. 

Agreeably  to  the  resolutions, the  following  correspondence  was  entered  into: 

Prof.  Chandler  R.  Gilman  : 

Dear   Sir: — As    Committee  appointed  by  the  Class,  we,  the  undersigned, 

would  solicit  respectfully  your  attention  to  the  above  resolutions;  and  hoping 

that  you  will  favorably  consider  them,  we  remain 

Respectfully  yours, 

JAMES  L.  BANKS, 
S.  W.  DANA, 
JAS.  R.  BIRD, 
JNO.  T.  CROOK, 
D.  W.  SCHMIDT. 


New  York,  Nov.  25th,  1856. 
Messrs.  Jas.  L.  Banks,  S.  W.  Dana, 

Jas.  R.  Bird,  J.  T.  Crook,  and  D.  W  Schmidt  : 
Gentlemen : — Your   communication   requesting  a  copy  of  my  Introductory 
Address  for  publication,  is  now  before  me. 

The  request  is  too  flattering  not  to  be  granted  by  me  with  great  pleasure. 
Be  pleased  to  accept  for  yourselves  my  cordial  thanks  for  the  kind  way  in  which 
youjiave  communicated  the  wishes  of  the  Class. 

Yery  truly  your  friend, 

C.  E.  GILMAN. 


At  a  subsequent  meeting,  Mr.  Ilinmun  in  the  chair,  the  report  of  the  Com- 
miU.'-f:  win  reftd;  and  it  was  re-wived,  that  the  same  gentlemen  take  charge  of 
tii'-  rabliofttion. 


ADDRESS. 


•Gentlemen  : — 

It  was  but  a  few  days  ago  that  I  was  aware  that  the  pleas- 
ant duty  of  welcoming  you  to  these  Halls  would  fall  to  my 
lot.  In  the  regular  course  of  academic  duty,  it  belonged  to 
one  of  my  colleagues ;  and  I  am  sure  you  will  all  agree  with 
me,  that  the  circumstances  which  have  prevented  his  assum- 
ing it  are  the  more  to  be  regretted,  as  it  is  to  his  enterprise, 
zeal,  and  energy,  that  we  are  mainly  indebted  for  the  erection 
of  this  splendid  building,  provided  as  it  is  with  all  the  means 
and  appliances  which  prolonged  experience  has  taught  us  to 
desire,  either  as  facilitating  your  progress  in  study,  or  as 
adding  to  your  personal  comfort. 

We  are  confident  that  in  both  these  respects,  it  will  com- 
pare very  favorably  with  any  college  building  in  our  country. 
To  all  its  conveniences,  and  to  all  the  advantages  which  you 
can  derive  from  our  best  efforts  to  aid  you  in  the  pursuit  of 
knowledge,  we  make  you  welcome.  Use  them  witli  industry 
and  zeal,  improve  to  the  utmost  the  opportunities  here  afford- 
ed you,  and  we  have  do  hesitation  in  promising  you  the  fullest 
measure  of  success. 

Saving  spoken  of  the  comforts  and  conveniences  of  this 
beautiful  building,  let  me  devote  a  single  moment  to  one  of 

.Cliailielit 

Appendix 


ADDRESS 


On  this  tablet  are  engraven  the  brief  histories  of  some 
who  have  gone  before  you,  and  who,  after  short  service,  have 
been  enrolled  among  those  whose  names  Science  and  Human- 
ity will  never  allow  to  die.  This  tablet  tells  you,  and  those 
who  come  after  you,  that  when  pestilence  was  rife  in  our  hos- 
pitals,— when  in  those  wards  devoted  to  public  health,  Death 
held  high  festival,  selecting  his  daily  victims  at  his  will, — 
when  to  minister  to  the  afflicted  and  dying,  was  almost  cer- 
tainly to  share  their  fate,  these  graduates  of  the  College  of 
Physicians  and  Surgeons,  were  ready  to  labor  night  and  day 
in  the  cause  of  suffering  humanity,  and  as  often  as  one  of  the 
number, — called  to  his  rest, — left  a  place  vacant,  a  score  of 
candidates  sprang  forward,  ready  and  anxious  to  fill  that  place 
of  danger  and  death ;  and  this  continued  till  fourteen  young 
physicians  had,  by  an  early  death,  earned  a  place  among  the 
martyrs  of  humanity.  Such  is  the  proud  ornament  of  our 
Hall,  and  such  the  story  it  tells  of  those  who  have  here  been 
trained  to  something  higher  than  medical  science, — something 
nobler  than  professional  skill.  To  the  priceless  heritage  of 
their  good  example  we  make  you  welcome.  It  is  yours ;  fol- 
low it ;  and  may  your  professional  career  be,  for  your  own 
sakes,  as  bright  and  as  honorable  as  theirs !  and,  for  the  sake 
of  your  country  and  friends,  may  it  be  longer  and  happier ! 

"With  this  much  of  cordial  greeting,  I  shall  ask  your  atten- 
tion to  some  remarks  on  the  relations  of  the  medical  to  the 
legal  profession,  and  the  duties  these  relations  involve. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation,  that  between  law- 
yers and  doctors,  as  such,  there  does  not  exist  much  respect 
on  the  one  hand,  or  good-will  on  the  other.  It  is  doubtless 
true,  that  we  of  the  medical  profession  have  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  bar  many  highly  valued  friends,  for  whom  we 
cherish  the  warmest  feelings  of  regard;  and  we  should  be 


ADDRESS. 


blind  and  senseless  indeed,  did  we  fail  to  appreciate  those 
brilliant  qualities  by  which  many  of  them  adorn  their  profes 
sion.  But  yesterday,  such  an  one  was  here  among  us, — the 
pride  and  glory  of  the  bar  of  New  York, — the  unrivaled 
advocate,  on  whose  eloquent  lips  entranced  thousands  hung, 
borne  aloft  at  his  will  on  the  wings  of  his  brilliant  fancy,  or 
fast  bound  in  the  chain  of  his  clear,  convincing  logic.  Many 
of  us  knew  him  in  private  life,  and  delighted  in  his  genial 
humor,  his  playful  wit,  his  kindly  temper,  his  warm,  benevo- 
lent heart.  Such  was  the  Hon.  Ogden  Hoffman,  of  New  York, 
as,  a  few  brief  clays  ago,  he  moved  among  us  in  the  full 
perfection  of  his  manhood,  the  ripe  maturity  of  his  intellect. 
One  little  week, — one  brief  period  of  seven  days,  passed  by, 
and  we  heard  the  solemn  voice  of  God's  minister  consigning 
earth  to  earth,  ashes  to  ashes,  dust  to  dust.  Even  so,  Father ! 
for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight. 

But  I  wander  from  my  theme ;  I  even  forget  it.  Those 
who  remember  him  will  forgive  me. 

Admitting,  then, — nay,  even  boastful  of  our  appreciation 
of  individuals,  it  still  remains  true,  that  our  kind  feelings  are 
to  the  individual  only.  For  lawyers,  as  such,  and  especially 
for  cross-examining  lawyers,  the  doctors,  very  generally,  have 
no  good-will ;  esteeming  their  rightmindedness  very  little, 
and  often  falling  into  the  grievous  error  of  supposing  that  the 
ethical  standard  of  the  bar  is  a  thing  altogether  imaginary, — 
a  pure  figment,  a  myth.  But  if  such  are  the  feelings  and  opin- 
ions of  the  doctor-  towards  the  lawyers,  how  is  it  on  the  other 
hand  '  Truly,  not  much  better;  for  though  the  members  of 
the  legal  profession  may  respect  and  esteem  individual  doctors, 
and  place  in  their  professional  skill,  as  practitioners  of  medi- 
cine a  full   measure  of  < fidence,  yet  when  reciprocal  duties 

bring    them    in    contact    a-    counsel    and  witness,  we  are  often 


8  ADDRESS. 

treated  with  very  little  consideration.  To  puzzle  a  medical  wit- 
ness, to  expose  his  inconsistencies,  and  laugh  at  his  opinions, 
is,  we  all  know,  a  very  favorite  amusement  with  the  lawyers. 
This  ought  not  to  be ;  these  feelings  ought  not  to  exist 
between  the  two  professions.  They  are  bound  together  by  ties 
which  should  insure  good  feeling  and  mutual  respect.  They 
are  both  learned  professions ;  their  members  belong  to  the 
brotherhood  of  scholars ;  the  associations  of  the  school-room 
and  the  college-hall  are  theirs.  The  power  of  these  kindly 
associations  often  binds  individuals  of  the  two  professions  in 
the  ties  of  life-long  friendship.  Why  should  those  thus  linked 
together  as  scholars  and  as  men,  rarely  meet  as  doctor  and 
lawyer  without  ill-will  on  the  one  side,  and  something  very 
like  contempt  on  the  other  ?  And  when  they  part,  the  one 
go  away  railing  at  the  unfairness  of  the  lawyers,  while  the 
other  remains  to  amuse  a  court  and  jury  with  sneers  at  the 
blunders  of  the  doctor.  Why  is  this  ?  As  in  most  cases  of 
difference  between  honest  men,  the  main  reason  is  that  the 
parties  do  not  understand  each  other, — do  not  appreciate  their 
mutual  position.  My  object,  this  evening,  is  to  do  something 
to  promote  a  mutual  good  understanding,  by  removing  from 
the  minds  of  my  medical  friends  some  notions  I  think  errone- 
ous, and  some  prejudices  which  are  certainly  unfounded.  Es- 
pecially do  I  desire  to  point  out  to  students  and  the  junior  mem- 
bers of  the  profession,  some  of  the  errors  which  medical  wit- 
nesses most  commonly  commit,  by  which  they  do  discredit  to 
themselves  and  to  their  profession.  I  have  already  said  that, 
to  promote  good  feeling,  a  thorough,  mutual,  good  understand- 
ing is  essential.  Each  party  must  appreciate  the  position  and 
duties  of  the  other.  This  I  think  medical  witnesses  rarely  do ; 
they  look  at  the  acts  of  a  lawyer  from  their  own  stand-point, 
not  from  his;  and  consequently  make  an  utterly  erroneous 


ADDRESS.  \1 

judgment  of  tliem.  Many  of  them  are  willing  to  join  in  the 
common  cant,  which  imputes  dishonesty  to  a  lawyer  because 
he  is  willing  to  argue  either  side  of  a  disputed  question. 

I  have  myself  heard — I  say  it  with  great  regret — very 
honorable  and  intelligent  physicians  uphold  the  preposterous 
proposition,  that  a  lawyer  should  not  advocate  any  claim  he 
does  not  believe  well  founded,  nor  defend  any  prisoner  unless 
he  believes  him  innocent.  I  have  called  this  a  preposterous 
proposition,  and  I  think  it  such.  Still,  as  it  is  very  popular 
not  only  with  the  ignorant  and  the  unthinking,  but  with  many 
who  surely  ought  to  know  better,  I  feel  myself  justified  in 
attempting  to  set  this  whole  matter  in  its  true  light  before 
you. 

A  few  very  simple  propositions  will  do  this.  The  only 
difficulty  is,  that  they  are  so  simple,  so  elementary,  that  I  feel 
almost  ashamed  to  make  a  formal  statement  of  them. 

The  true  theory  of  all  trials  in  courts  of  law,  whether  by 
jury  or  before  judges,  is  this  :  a  question  being  in  dispute,  the 
facts  and  arguments  on  the  one  side  and  the  other  are  present- 
ed to  the  deliberate  consideration  of  the  court,  and  by  them 
the  case  is  decided.  That  their  decision  may  be  just,  it  is 
obvious  that  all  the  arguments  on  both  sides  should  be  fully 
before  them.  Who  can  doubt  that  this  end  will  be  best 
secured,  when  the  arguments  on  the  one  side  are  prepared 
and  presented  by  one  man,  while  those  on  the  opposite  side 
are  prepared  and  presented  by  another  ? 

Neither  advocate,  observe,  is  required  or  expected  to 
express  his  individual  opinions  on  the  matter ;  indeed,  it  is  a 
violation  of  strict  legal  etiqnette  that  he  should  do  so.  He  is 
employed  to  present,  in  legal  form,  the  argument  on  one  Bide 
of  a  disputed    point.      His  vocation   "hath  this  extent,  no 

more."      Now.  is  there   any  thing  wrong,  any  thing  dishonest, 


10  ADDRESS. 

any  thing  dishonorable  in  this  ?  Is  it  not,  on  the  contrary, 
the  most  certain  way  of  securing  the  best  interests  of  truth 
and  justice  ?  The  case  seems  to  me  so  simple,  that  it  is  almost 
a  waste  of  words  to  argue  it.  Away,  then,  with  the  idle 
notion  that  an  upright  lawyer  should  only  argue  that  side 
which  he  judges  the  right  one.  He  has  no  call  to  judge  in 
the  matter ;  and  if  he  do  so,  he  arrogates  to  himself  the  func- 
tion of  judge  and  jury,  and  exercises  those  functions  when 
ignorant,  it  may  well  be,  of  many  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
the  principles  of  law  which  apply  to  them.  The  truth  is,  that 
when  a  lawyer  refuses  to  defend  a  criminal  because  he  thinks 
him  guilty,  he  does  that  criminal  a  positive  wrong, — depriv- 
ing him,  so  far  as  he  can,  of  a  fair  trial.  I  know  that  lawyers 
sometimes  do  this,  and  are  praised  for  it.  But  that  an  honest 
man  should  act  thus,  or  an  intelligent  man  praise  him  for  it, 
is  only  to  be  explained  by  referring  to  that  proneness  we  all 
have  to  do  our  neighbor's  duty  though  we  neglect  our  own. 

Here  the  lawyers'  duty  is  plain;  he  is  to  give  his  client  the 
benefit  of  a  complete  legal  defense;  but  your  extra-conscien- 
tious man  is,  forsooth,  so  anxious  that  a  guilty  man  should  not 
escape  punishment,  that  he  abandons  his  own  duty  to  aid  in 
performing  that  of  the  judge  and  jury. 

If  men  would  only  follow  the  simple  rule,  Do  your  duty 
and  leave  results  to  God,  where  they  belong,  we  never  should 
hear  of  this  grievous  error.  Shall  a  lawyer  say,  This  is  a 
murderer,  and  he  ought  to  be  hanged,  and  I  will  do  all  I  can, 
by  refusing  him  legal  counsel,  to  hang  him.  Whether  he  ought 
to  be  hanged  or  no,  is  not  the  question  in  which  your  duty  is 
involved.  That  question  is,  Shall  he  have  a  fair  trial?  And 
your  duty  in  the  premises  is  to  see  that  he  has  it.  That  duty 
done,  you  are  free,  and  it  remains  for  judge  and  jury  to  do 
theirs. 


ADDRESS.  11 

I  have  elaborated  this  point  more  than  I  had  at  first 
intended ;  my  excuse  is,  that  the  error  I  combat,  is  widely 
prevalent,  and  excites  a  strong  and  most  unreasonable 
prejudice  against  the  members  of  the  bar. 

But  it  is  not  upon  this  point  that  the  personal  difficulties 
between  medical  witnesses  and  counsel  occur.  They  arise  on 
cross-examinations,  and  I  regret  to  say,  that  they  arise  in  the 
vast  majority  of  cases  from  faults  on  our  side.  I  do  not  assert 
that  there  are  no  faults  with  the  lawyers.  Some,  even  of  the 
most  respectable,  will  we  all  know,  shout  out  their  questions 
in  the  tone  of  a  sailor  hailing  a  ship  ;  some  will  try  to  bnlly ; 
and  some  (with  all  possible  deference  be  it  spoken)  will  resort 
to  tricks,  unworthy  of  a  gentleman. 

What  then — Shall  I  get  angry,  because  a  man  speaks  too 
loudly,  or  tries  to  bully,  or  being  a  vulgar  man,  acts  like  a 
vulgar  man?  Is  it  not  far  better  when  he  shouts,  to  assure  him 
in  the  blandest  possible  tone,  that  you  are  not  deaf  and  that 
consequently  such  straining  of  his  voice  is  quite  needless.  Or 
if  lie  bullies  or  vulgarizes  in  any  other  way,  to  treat  him 
with  ceremonious  politeness.  This  often  succeeds  admirably: 
nothing  confuses  your  vulgar  man  like  politeness ;  he  never 
knows  what  it  means,  and  is  always  ready,  like  Grub  in  the 
comedy,  to  swear  it  is  a  plot  for  he  can  make  nothing  of  it. 

All  due  allowance  being  made  for  these  small  matters,  the 
conviction  remains  strong  on  my  mind,  that  the  difficulties  and 
bad  feeling  which  arise  between  cross-examining  lawyers  and 
medical  witnesses,  are  in  the  vast  majority  of  instances  the 
fault  of  the  latter.  This,  1  think,  conies  in  most  cases  from  the 
medical  witness  aol  appreciating  the  position  of  the  counsel, 
and  hi-  dnty  to  his  client. 

Hi-  dnty  plainly  i-,  \<>  sift  the  evidence  that  bears  against 

bit  client  :  ami  if  t  lnr<-  In-  a  flaw  in  it — if  a  fact  has  Keen  stated 


12  ADDRESS. 

inaccurately,  a  principle  pushed  too  far,  an  opinion  rashly- 
hazarded — the  error  must  be  exposed.  How  can  this  be  done 
without  rigid  cross-examination?  And  why  should  a  medical 
witness  take  offense  at  this  ?  Yet  how  common  it  is  to  hear 
medical  men  complain,  as  though  a  grievous  insult  had  been 
offered  them !  The  lawyer,  say  they,  tried  to  break  down  my 
evidence,  tried  to  make  me  contradict  myself.  I  believe  he 
supposes  I  committed  perjury.  Now,  all  this  is  idle.  He 
tried  to  break  down  your  evidence  ;  did  he  ? — Of  course  ! 
Your  evidence  was  fatal  to  his  client.  He  tried  to  make  you 
contradict  yourself? — Certainly!  your  self-contradiction  would 
be  his  victory.  Does  he  suppose  you  are  committing  perjury? — 
Not  at  all !  He  means  by  cross-examination  to  find  out  whether 
you  have  or  not.  If  you  have  not,  his  cross-examination  will 
do  you  good  rather  than  harm.  He  is  doing  his  duty  in  trying 
to  break  the  force  of  your  evidence ;  and  it  is  your  duty  to 
yourself,  and  to  the  cause  of  truth,  to  present  such  evidence 
that  he  cannot  break  down. 

But  medical  witnesses  often  fall  into  errors,  not  from  fail- 
ing to  appreciate  the  lawyer's  position,  but  by  utterly  forget- 
ting their  own.     That  position  is  one  of  absolute  neutrality. 

We  are,  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  subpoenaed  by  one  party. 
Now,  medical  witnesses  often  seem  to  suppose  that  they  are 
enlisted  on  that  side,  bound  to  tell  all  that  can  make  in  its 
favor,  and  nothing  that  can  prejudice  it.  They  consequently 
lend  themselves  very  willingly  to  the  leading  of  the  one 
counsel,  and  strive  to  give  him  just  the  evidence  he  wants; 
while  to  the  other  party,  they  assume  from  the  first  an  attitude 
unmistakably  belligerent.  The  extent  to  which  this  spirit  of 
partisanship  pervades  the  profession,  is  absolutely  wonderful. 
I  met,  the  other  day,  with  a  most  remarkable  and  even  an 
amusing  illustration  of  this. 


ADDRESS.  13 

Consulting,  for  a  different  purpose,  F.  Winslow's  Lectures 
on  Insanity,  I  noticed  that,  in  speaking  of  an  error  medical 
men  may  commit,  he  says,  "The  medical  witness  may  thus  in- 
jure the  cause  he  is  most  anxious  to  serve  ;"  and  a  little  further 
on,  he  speaks  of  "the  party  in  whose  favor  we  appear." 

Here  is  a  teacher,  and  a  very  eminent  teacher,  of  medical 
jurisprudence,  seemingly  ignorant  of  the  first  principles  of  all 
correct  testifying. 

He  speaks  with  the  most  edifying  simplicity,  of  "  the 
party  in  whose  favor  we  appear,"  just  as  though  the  doctor 
were  the  hired  advocate  of  one  party,  instead  of  being  sworn  to 
testify  to  the  truth  without  fear,  favor,  or  affection. 

Is  it  strange  that  when  a  lawyer  finds  a  medical  witness 
animated  by  this  spirit,  anxious  (in  the  words  of  Dr.  Winslow), 
••  most  anxious  to  serve  the  party  in  whose  favor  he  appears  " 
lie  should  strive  to  break  down  such  testimony?  Is  he  to  be 
blamed,  if  in  so  doing  he  is  little  regardful  of  the  feelings  of 
'.lie,  who  has  shown  himself  so  regardless  of  his  own  obliga- 
tions to  truth  and  justice? 

.V..  one  can  doubt  that  this  partisan  spirit  is  abhorrent  to 

ry  principle  of  right.  Never  allow  it  to  influence,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  your  testimony. 

Hut  it  sometimes  happens  that  witnesses  are  rendered 
partial,  QOt  by  this  foolish  notion  of  being  enlisted  in  the 
Bervice  <>f  one  or  the  other  party,  but  by  their  own  sympa- 
thies They  know,  or  what  is  much  oftener  the  case  they 
rhiirk  they  know,  that  all  the  right  of  the  case  is  with  one 
party,  all  the  injustice  with  the  other.  Then  comes  the 
apprehension,  that  what  they  may  say  will  prejudice  the 
can-.'  -.1'  justice.  A  fellow-creature  is  on  trial  far  life  or 
liberty,  of  which  we  thins  the  law  is  about,  unjustly  to  deprive 

him.      The  best  and  most  kindly  sympal  hie.-,  of  OUT  naluiv,  are 


14  ADDRESS. 

enlisted  in  his  behalf,  and  we  fear  lest  our  testimony  (though 
perfectly  true)  may  do  him  harm.  How  difficult  under  such 
circumstances,  to  testify  entirely  without  bias,  especially  when 
we  speak  to  matters  of  opinion,  perhaps  to  very  nice  shades  of 
opinion  !  Here  a  word,  a  look,  a  tone  of  the  voice,  may  give 
to  your  testimony  a  false  coloring.  To  avoid  errors  from  this 
source,  as  well  as  from  partisan  feeling,  the  medical  witness 
should  cherish  a  spirit  of  indifference  as  to  the  effect  of  his 
testimony  on  the  case. 

Let  him  never  give  the  result  a  thought — it  is  a  thing  with 
which  he  has  nothing  to  do.  His  duty  is  to  tell  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth ;  what  use  the  court 
may  think  proper  to  make  of  it,  is  a  matter  for  which  he  is  in 
no  shape  or  way  responsible. 

Here,  as  before,  men  often  neglect  their  own  duty  in  their 
anxiety  that  their  neighbors  should  do  theirs. 

Another  element  often  gives  onesidedness  to  medical  testi- 
mony. Physicians  commit  themselves — early  in  a  cause,  per- 
haps even  before  the  trial  begins — to  opinions  which,  when 
compelled  on  cross-examination  to  review,  they  find  require 
modifications.  ISTow,  it  is  often  very  difficult  to  make  these 
modifications,  be  they  ever  so  necessary.  The  counsel  on  the 
one  side  having  secured  the  evidence  his  case  requires,  is  un- 
willing to  admit  any  change  that  may  injure  its  effect ;  on 
the  other  side  it  is  the  business  of  counsel,  and  I  repeat  it 
again  and  again  it  is  his  duty,  to  compel  you,  if  he  can,  to 
admit  the  inaccuracy  of  your  first  unguarded  opinion,*  and 
either  to  withdraw  it  altogether,  or  so  to  qualify  it  as  that 
neither  force  nor  sense  remain  in  it. 

From  all  this  it  too  often  results,  that  between  one  lawyer, 
who  wishes  the  opinion  to  stand  absolutely  unchanged,  and 
the   other,    who   will  be    content  with  nothing  less  than  an 


ADDRESS.  15 

essential  modification  of  it,  the  opinion  is  torn  to  pieces ; 
lucky  if  the  doctor's  reputation  for  intelligence,  or  even  for 
integrity,  does  not  share  the  same  fate.  When  all  is  over, 
our  unlucky  brother  will  weary  all  his  friends  with  complaints 
of  the  unfairness  of  the  lawyers ;  when  the  whole  difficulty 
arose  naturally,  and  indeed  necessarily,  from  his  own  rashness 
in  advancing  an  opinion  which  deliberate  consideration  would 
have  shown  him  was  untenable.  To  avoid  all  this,  never 
give  an  opinion  on  a  subject  which  you  have  not  deliberately 
considered ;  and  if  asked  for  one  decline  to  give  it,  and  state 
plainly  and  frankly  the  reason.  Say  you  have  no  opinion,  as 
it  is  a  matter  you  have  not  studied. 

But  here  we  come  upon  a  very  fruitful  source  of  blunder- 
ing, if  nothing  worse,  in  medical  evidence :  I  mean  profes- 
sional pride,  or  rather  professional  vanity.  Some  of  the 
brethren  are  very  unwilling  to  admit,  that  there  is  anything 
connected  with  the  profession  of  which  they  are  ignorant. 
They  may  not  claim,  in  so  many  words,  that  their  knowl- 
edge  has  no  limit ;  but  they  are  very  unwilling  to  allow  any 
one  to  fix  this  limit.  The  little  words,  "I  do  not  know"  are  of 
all  the  words  in  the  language,  the  most  difficult  to  get  out  of 
their  mouths. 

Now,  this  foible,  when  displayed  in  ordinary  talk,  or  in  the 
debates  of  learned  academies  (where  it  is  very  apt  to  figure 
largely),  is  only  ridiculous;  but  when  paraded  on  the  witness- 
stand,  tin-  result  is  very  different.  To  the  standers-by  it  is  a 
rich  treat,  to  watch  "in:  <>f  these  learned  pundits  as  he  shifts 
and  turns,  doubles  ami  winds — now  here,  now  there — in  every 
path  hut  the  straight  one;     the    lawyer  all  the  while  following 

him  up  with  the  -cent  of  u  well-trained  fox-hound, — enjoying 
the  chase  and  rare  to  be  "  in  at,  the  death." 

This,  a-  !  have  said,  ie  rare  sport  to  the  by-standers;  for,  as 


16  ADDRESS. 

Rochefoucauld  says,  "There  is  something  in  the  misfor- 
tunes of  our  best  friends  which  is  not  disagreeable  to  us." 
To  the  poor  hunted  animal  of  a  witness,  it  is  rather  annoying. 
How  much  better  it  would  have  been,  to  avoid  all  this  by 
saying  at  once,  I  do  not  know,  instead  of  having  your  ignorant 
pretensions  made  matter  of  proof,  and  commented  on  to  a 
sneering  multitude ! 

Here,  as  ever,  honesty  is  the  best  policy;  and  the  honest, 
the  honorable  course  plainly  is, — if  you  do  not  know,  to  say 
so  at  once. 

I  have  thus,  Gentlemen,  dwelt  on  some  of  the  errors  which 
make  the  giving  of  medical  testimony  disagreeable  to  the 
witness,  and  unsatisfactory  to  the  court.  This  I  have  done 
without  any  reference  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  testimony. 
There  is,  however,  one  subject  on  which  we  are  often  required 
to  give  testimony,  which  is  so  beset  with  difficulties,  that  a 
more  special  attention  to  it  seems  proper.  I  refer  to 
Insanity. 

The  medico-legal  investigations  connected  with  unsound- 
ness of  mind  are  equally  important  and  difficult :  they  often 
touch  the  liberty  and  sometimes  the  life  of  a  fellow  creature  ; 
and  some  of  the  questions  involved  are  so  exceedingly 
obscure,  as  to  task  the  strongest  intellects,  and  often  to  task 
them  in  vain. 

The  innate  difficulties  of  the  subject  are  unfortunately 
aggravated  in  a  ten-fold  degree,  by  the  very  unsatisfactory 
state  of  the  law,  and  the  strange  unwillingness  which  many  of 
its  disciples  show  to  make  it  keep  pace  with  the  advance  of 
general  science.  There  is  in  this  respect,  a  wide  difference 
between  law  and  medicine. 

The  spirit  of  the  law  is  conservative — it  looks  to  precedents 
and  authorities — it  is  the  very  reverse  of  progressive. 


ADDRESS.  17 

It  is  the  boast  of  the  cultivators  of  medicine,  that  their 
science  is  eminently  progressive,  and  authorities  have  little 
controlling  influence  over  us.  On  no  subject  is  this  differ- 
ence between  the  two  professions  more  marked,  than  on 
insanity.  Speak  to  a  lawyer  of  insanity,  he  will  quote  Sir 
Mathew  Hale  and  Lord  Coke  as  his  unerring  guides ;  he 
neither  knows,  nor  cares  to  know,  more  than  was  thought  by 
these  lights  of  the  bar.  Speak  to  a  doctor — will  he  quote 
authorities  200  years  old  ?  We  should  certainly  think  the  man 
himself  mad  if  he  did.  It  is  surely  no  matter  for  wonder  that 
men  should  differ,  when  they  look  at  a  subject  from  stand- 
points two  centuries  apart.  To  some  of  these  points  of  differ- 
ence, I  will  now  call  your  attention  ;   and 

First,  as  to  the  competency  of  medical  witnesses  in  cases  of 
insanity.  By  a  strange  inconsistency  though  medical  men  are 
constantly  called  to  speak  as  experts  oii  insanity ;  yet  no 
sooner  is  their  evidence  obtained,  than  the  lawyer  to  whose 
case  it  chances  to  be  unfavorable,  is  sure  to  deny  that  a 
doctor  is  any  authority  on  the  subject;  and  he  will  often  find 
Btipport  from  the  bench.  Lord  Denman,  for  example,  says, 
"As  to  moral  insanity,  I  cannot  admit  that  medical  men  have 
at  all  more  means  of  forming  an  opinion  in  such  cases,  than  are 
possessed  by  gentlemen  accustomed  to  the  affairs  of  life,  and 
bringing  to  the  subject  a  wide  experience."  This  question  of 
the  competence  of  medical  witnesses  has  been  widely  dis- 
cussed, and  the  arguments  pro  and  con  variously  stated,  by 
Kant.  ELoffbauer,  Regnauld,  and  many  other  writers  on  medical 
jurisprudence. 

to  me,  that  the  Solution  <(    it   must  depend   on  tin1 

we  take  of  the  essential  nature^of  insanity,  as  a  disease 
of  tin:  body  or  of  the  mind.     IT  it  is  a  disease  of  the  body, 
then:  can  be  little  doubt  thai  it  ma    !>'■  mosl  correctly  judged 
2 


18  ADDRESS. 

of  by  those  who  are  familiar  by  their  daily  avocations  and 
studies  with  such  diseases. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  a  disease  of  the  mind,  the  investi- 
gation of  it  properly  belongs  to  those  who  study  the  mind, — 
the  metaphysicians. 

Let  us  look  a  little  closely  at  this  matter.  We  all  speak 
familiarly  of  diseased  mind.  Did  you  ever  ask  yourselves  the 
question,  Can  the  mind  he  diseased  f  Is  the  immaterial,  the 
immortal  part  of  man,  subject  to  disease  ?  Disorder  and  decay 
can  very  properly  be  predicated,  a  priori,  of  the  body ;  its 
destiny  is  death  ;  it  lives  but  to  die  ;  disease  is  the  pathway 
by  which  it  reaches  that  goal  of  its  existence — the  Grave. 
But  how  can  that  subtle  mental  essence,  which  has  neither 
members  nor  parts,  be  disordered  ?  How  can  the  immortal 
principle  within  us  decay  ?  It  cannot  be.  Disease,  disorder, 
decay,  all  belong  to  the  body,  and  to  the  body  only  ;  and 
consequently  we  must  place  the  essential  seat  of  insanity  in 
the  body  not  the  mind. 

I  know  that  it  is  objected  to  this  theory  of  insanity,  that 
in  many  cases  we  can  detect  no  lesion  in  the  brain  of  the 
madman.  This  is  true  ;  but  is  it  less  true,  that  in  very  many 
cases  we  can  trace  insanity  directly  to  diseases  or  injuries  of 
the  brain?  And  when  we  cannot  do  so,  shall  we  say  that 
structural  change  does  not  exist,  because  we  cannot  detect  it  ? 
Who  doubts  that  neuralgia  depends  on  lesion  of  the  nerves. 
Yet  the  scalpel,  however  well  guided,  the  microscope  however 
powerful,  cannot  always  make  the  lesion  palpable  to  our 
senses. 

If,  then,  insanity  be  a  disease  of  the  brain,  the  right  of  a 
medical  man  to  speak  authoritatively  as  to  its  existence,  is 
beyond  cavil. 

But  though  we  thus  insist  on  our  right  to  speak  as  to  the 


ADDRESS.  19 

existence  of  insanity  because  it  is  a  bodily  disease ;  yet  we  must 
uot  forget  that  it  manifests  itself  chiefly  by  mental  phenom- 
ena, is  often  produced  by  mental  causes  and  cured  by  moral 
means ;  so  that  he  who  has  not  studied  mind  in  its  normal  state, 
when  its  manifestations  are  not  interfered  with  by  disorder  of 
its  material  organ  the  brain,  cannot  speak  on  insanity  without 
the  certainty  of  blundering.  You  all  know  how  futile  is  the 
attempt,  to  study  the  pathology  of  the  body  when  ignorant  of 
its  physiology.  How  can  we  expect  to  succeed  with  the  far 
more  obscure  subject  of  mental  disease? 

The  study  of  metaphysics  is,  then,  essential  to  the  acquisi- 
tion of  any  accurate  knowledge  of  insanity. 

But  metaphysics  alone  will  not  suffice ;  you  must  study  the 
influence  of  mind  on  matter  as  well  as  that  of  matter  on  mind ; 
in  the  former  you  have  the  therapeutics  of  insanity — in  the 
latter  its  etiology.  Study,  then,  mental  phenomena  in  health 
as  well  as  disease. 

Thus  prepared,  you  may  go  to  the  examination  of  an  indi- 
vidual case  of  insanity,  with  good  hope  of  success;  and  if  your 
examination  be  patient  and  thorough,  you  may  present  the 
result-  of  it  to  a  court,  with  a  reasonable  certainty  of  doing 
yourself  credit  and  promoting  the  cause  of  justice. 

The  first  difficulty  you  encounter  is  with  the  definition  of 
insanity.  This  is  frequently  asked  for  by  the  lawyers  "per 
ambages,"  to  use  one  of  their  own  phrases.  The  prudent 
course  is  to  decline,  saying  to  the  court  that  it  is  impossible 
r<.  comprehend  all  the  phenomena  of  insanity  within  the 
limits  of  a  definition.  If,  however,  you  desire  to  give  one,  he 
-urc  that  it  is  the  resull  of  careful  and  patient  previous  thought. 
If  yon  are  quite  sure  thai  you  can  recollect  a  definition 
which  satisfied  your  mind,  in  your  study,  you  may  give  it  ; 


20  ADDRESS. 

but  rely  upon  it,  if  you  try  to  extemporize  a  definition  it  will 
be  a  bad  one.  The  best  I  have  been  able  to  make,  is  this : 
"  Insanity  is  a  disease  of  the  brain  by  which  the  freedom  of  the 
will  is  impaired."  I  suppose,  some  of  my  legal  friends  will  say 
that  the  chief  merit  of  this  definition  of  mine  is,  it  leaves  so 
many  loopholes  for  the  medical  witness  to  creep  out  of;  to  tell 
the  truth,  I  do  not  myself  think  that  its  worst  point.  The 
definition  of  insanity  being  disposed  of,  the  next  question  is, 
What  is  the  mental  condition  of  the  party  whose  case  is  before 
you?  To  this  you  may  reply  in  general  terms,  He  is  insane, 
should  that  be  your  opinion.  Or  you  may  state  particularly, 
He  is  a  lunatic,  a  monomaniac,  or  the  like.  I  think  it  is  best 
to  use  in  the  first  instance  the  general  terms,  He  is  insane,  and 
go  into  particulars  only  when  required  to  do  so.  Even  then, 
be  sure  to  go  no  farther  than  the  question  leads ;  and  above  all 
avoid  the  use  of  technical  terms.  Their  needless  use  (one  of 
the  vices  of  our  profession,  by  the  by)  is  always  in  bad  taste, 
and  in  cross-examination  it  is  sure  to  provoke  court,  counsel, 
and  jury.  ISTo  man  likes  to  be  addressed  in  terms  he  does  not 
understand ;  it  shocks  his  self-love,  and  you  have  at  once  his 
vanity  up  in  arms  against  you.  Technical  terms  are  never 
necessary  to  those  who  understand  themselves ;  the  use  of  hard 
words  is  the  refuge  of  the  muddy  headed :  he  who  sees  clearly 
will  generally  define  accurately. 

Having  given  your  opinions  (always  without  needless  de- 
tail and  in  the  simplest  words  possible)  you  will  of  course  be 
asked  for  your  reasons.     You  think  this  man  insane — Why  % 

Here  we  come  to  a  point  where  law  and  medicine  diverge 
widely.  The  law  demands  a  standard  of  sanity,  or  some  single 
test  of  easy  application.  It  seeks  to  draw  a  well-defined  line, 
all  above  which  is  sanity,  all  below  insanity.     Medicine  ignores 


ADDRESS.  21 

all  this,  and  refuses  to  compare  every  man's  mind  with  any 
arbitrary  standard.  As  to  tests  of  insanity,  the  law  has  for 
ages  had  one  ;  medicine  has  none.  Experience  has  taught  us 
that  in  this  matter,  the  establishing  of  standards  and  the  appli- 
cation of  tests  is  altogether  futile. 

The  true  idea  of  all  the  forms  of  insanity,  except  congen- 
ital idiocv.  is  set  forth  in  the  term  mental  alienation,  mental 
change.  This  man  is  insane,  not  because  he  differs  from 
another,  not  because  he  falls  below  any  arbitrary  standard,  or 
responds  to  a  certain  test,  but  because  he  differs  from  himself, 
and  has  by  force  of  disease  fallen  below  the  standard  of  his 
own  better  self.  Here  is  the  true  theory  of  insanity, — "moral 
or  intellectual  change,  dependent  on  disease  of  the  brain.1'  I 
have  already  said  that  the  law  has  had  for  ages  one  favorite 
test  f»r  Insanity.  It  is  at  least  two  hundred  years  old,  and 
consists  in  "the  knowing  right  from  wrong."  It  is  a  very 
striking  illustration  -of  the  non-progressive  character  of  the 
law,  that  the  twelve  judges  of  England,  when  applied  to  by  the 
Eonse  of  Lords  on  this  subject,  in  1851,  did  not  advance  one 
step  beyond  this  old  test,  but  declared  "a  person  was  punishable 
if  lie  'knew,  at  the  time  of  committing  the  crime,  that  he  was 
acting  contrary  to  the  lav  of  the  land;1''  and  again,  they  say, 
••To  establish  a  defence  on  the  ground  of  insanity,  it  must' 
be  proved  that  the  party  <lid  not  know  that  he  was  doing 
wrong." 

..  the  utter  futility  of  this  test  has  been  familiarly 
known  to  physicians  tor  nearly  a  century;  and,  moreover,  it 
ha-  been  disregarded  in  the  administration  of  the  law,  again 
and  again.  Man\  persons  have  been  acquitted  on  the  ground 
of  unmistakable  insanity,  who  not  only  knew  the  difference 
between  right  and  wrong  in  general,  hut  were  perfectly 
aware  thai  the  particular  acl  tln\  committed  wa    contrary  to 


22  ADDRESS. 

law.     A  remarkable  case  of  tliis  kind  occurred  in   England 
in  1800. 

James  Hadfield  fired  a  pistol  at .  King  George,  in  Drury 
Lane  Theatre.  He  was  arrested  on  the  spot,  tried  for  the 
offense,  and  acquitted  as  beyond  all  controversy  a  lunatic. 
Yet  Hadfield  avowed,  that  he  knew  perfectly  well  that  what 
he  did  was  illegal,  and  he  would  be  hanged  for  it ;  and  said 
that  he  did  it  for  that  very  reason  :  he  was  tired  of  life,  and 
wished  to  be  hanged. 

So  much  for  the  knowing  right  from  wrong,  as  a  test  of 
sanity ;  and  so  much  is  the  administration  of  the  law  better, 
and  more  humane,  than  the  abstract  idea  of  the  law.  Now, 
when  the  medical  witness  is  required  to  apply  this  test,  in 
any  of  its  forms,  to  a  case,  he  should,  I  think,  ignore  it  alto- 
gether. If  asked  "  Does  this  man  know  right  from  wrong  V 
my  answer  would  be,  "I  suppose  he  does,  almost  all  insane 
people  do." 

After  these  remarks  on  insanity  in  general,  I  will  say  a 
few  words  on  some  of  its  forms. 

First  of  lunacy :  The  essential  feature  here  is,  the  party 
has  lucid  intervals.  Now,  it  is  all  important  that  the  medical 
witness  should  know,  that  the  legal  and  the  medical  significa- 
tion of  these  terms  are  widely  different.  The  legal  definition, 
I  as  find  it  in  Shelford  on  Wills,  is  "  A  lucid  interval  is  not  a 
remission. of  the  complaint,  but  a  total,  though  temporary 
cessation  of  it,  a  complete  restoration  to  the  perfect  enjoyment 
of  reason."  In  medicine,  a  lucid  interval  is  something  very 
different,  it  is  a  characteristic  period  of  the  disease,  like  the 
interval  in  a  case  of  ague.  Bear  this  in  mind,  or  you  may 
convey  to  the  court  an  impression  widely  different  from  that 
which  you  design. 

Let  us  now  say  a  word  as  to  another  form  of  insanity. 


ADDRESS.  23 

We  sometimes  meet  with  men  who,  manifesting  insanity 
unmistakable  on  some  subjects,  are  yet  upon  others,  to  all 
appearance,  perfectly  sane.  These  cases  of  monomania  as 
they  are  called,  are  of  every  clay's  observation  with  those  who 
have  charge  of  the  insane.  How  are  they  to  be  explained  ? 
Are  we  to  give  to  the  words  "  partial  insanity,"  by  which  they 
are  often  designated,  a  literal  signification,  and  believe  that 
part  of  the  mind  is  sound  and  part  unsound?  Can  we  in 
accurate  use  of  language,  speak  of  the  parts  of  the  mind  as  we 
do  of  those  of  the  body  ?  I  think  not.  "  The  mind,"  says 
Lord  Brougham,  "  hath  neither  members  nor  compartments  ; 
and  what  we  call  its  faculties,  as  memory,  imagination,  &c, 
are  not  parts,  but  modes  of  acting.  We  do  not  use  one  part 
of  our  mind  when  we  remember,  and  another  when  we 
imagine.  We  use  the  mind  in  one  particular  way  in  the  first 
case,  and  in  another  in  the  second." 

From  this  theory  we  deduce,  I  think,  the  true  explanation 
of  these  cases  of  partial  insanity.  The  mind,  through  its 
organ  the  brain,  is  as  a  whole  affected  ;  but  this  diseased  state, 
though  always  present,  is  manifested  only  when  the  mind  acts 
in  a  particular  way.  An  illustration  from  bodily  disease  will 
perhaps  make  this  more  intelligible.  Suppose  a  man  to  have 
an  injury  of  the  thigh,  which  causes  him  to  limp  when 
running  or  going  up  Btairs,  though  he  walks  well  enough  over 
level  surface.  Yov  could  not  say,  this  man  is  partly  lame, 
or  only  lame  when  he  runs  or  goes  lip  stairs.  He  is  always 
lame,  though  his  lameness  is  only  manifested  when  he  uses 
hi-  Leg  in  one  pari icular  way. 

This   is  the   true  theory  of  monomania,  and  it  is  of  the 
almost  importance  in  Legal  medicine,  as  teaching  us  the  impro 
priety  of  ever  speaking  of  any  of  the  acts  of  monomania  ;i* 
those  of  a  sane  man.     In  relation  to  partial  insanity  the  law 


24  ADDRESS. 

deems  it  necessary  in  criminal  cases,  that  the  delusion  under 
which  the  party  labors  should  be  connected  with  or  prompt  to 
the  crime  he  has  committed.  This  notion  the  medical  witness 
should  never  for  a  moment  countenance.  The  associations  by 
which  the  ideas  of  the  sane  are  linked  together,  are,  we  all  know, 
exceedingly  obscure.  How  much  more  those  of  the  insane ! 
and  how  impossible  it  is  to  say,  that  this  or  that  delusion  could 
not  have  prompted  the  mind  of  a  maniac  to  the  commission  of 
this  or  that  crime  ! 

There  is  yet  one  other  form  of  insanity,  which  though  for- 
tunately rare,  sometimes  demands  investigation  in  courts  of 
justice ;  and  on  which  I  regret  to  say  that  a  majority  of  the 
legal  profession,  have  yet  to  acquire  their  first  rational  idea. 
I  refer  to  moral  insanity. 

This  form  of  madness  presents  to  us  the  appalling  spectacle 
of  a  disease  of  the  brain,  the  chief  symptom  of  which  is  an 
irresistible  impulse  to  commit  crime.  The  brain  is  touched,  it 
may  be  that  we  can  trace  the  physical  lesion,  or  it  may  be 
that  some  hidden  fibre  is  in  some,  to  us,  inscrutable  way  dis- 
ordered ;  and  the  terrible  result  is  that  a  man  hitherto  mild 
and  gentle,  or  it  may  be  a  woman  who  has  been  decked  with 
all  a  woman's  tender  and  loving  attributes,  rushes  upon  crime 
with  a  fierce  recklessness  which  depravity  never  equaled. 
He  was  a  humane  and  kindly  gentleman ;  disease  makes  him 
a  human  tiger.  He  riots  in  blood;  and  murder — ferocious, 
brutal,  yet  senseless  and  motiveless  murder — is  the  necessity 
of  his  existence — the  very  breath  of  his  nostrils. 

His  determinations  seem  to  result  from  something  external 
to  his  own  mind — independent  of  his  own  will.  He  is  driven 
to  the  commission  of  crime,  by  an  impulse  as  blind  and  as 
irresistible  as  the  fabled  destiny  of  the  ancients.  It  suggests 
motives  at  which  he  shudders  and  actions  he  abhors,  and  like 


ADDRESS.  25 

the  furies  of  Orestes,  it  lashes  him  forward  in  the  path  of  crime, 
every  step  of  which  he  treads  with  horror.  Such  is  moral  in- 
>anit y :  a  mystery,  an  appalling  mystery  it  is  that  all  this  should 
be  the  result  of  physical  disease.  Yet  is  the  existence  of  this 
form  of  insanity  as  certain  as  the  existence  of  God. 

How  does  the  law  deal  with  these  cases  ?  They  are  by  Bar 
and  Bench  in  very  large  majority  altogether  ignored — nay 
scoffed  at. 

"Moral  insanity!"  says  a  very  distinguished  member  of  the 
English  bar,  "call  it  rather  immoral  insanity,  and  punish  it 
accordingly."1  And  again  he  says,  "The  law  utterly  ignores 
thifi  moral  insanity." 

"If  a  man  has  an  irresistible  impulse  to  commit  murder, 
the  law  should  have  an  irresistible  impulse  to  hang  him,"  said 
in  my  hearing  a  judge  of  our  highest  court. 

Is  not  this  amazing?  I,  as  a  man  of  science,  testify  as  to 
a  disease  with  which  personal  observation  and  careful  study 
have  made  me  entirely  familiar,  of  the  existence  of  which  I 
have  no  more  doubt  and  no  more  reason  to  doubt  than  of  my 
own.  And  the  legal  reply  is,  "The  law  ignores  the  existence 
of  this  disease."  If  I  remonstrate — if  I  say,  "  I  have  seen  this 
di-ca-<\  other  men  have  seen  it" — I  hear  something  about 
Lord  Eldon.  I  still  insist,  "We  are  not  concerned  with  Lord 
Khlon.  hut  with  this  disease  which  1  will  show  yon/1  "Nay, 
Imt  Lord  Coke,"  quoth  my  opponent,  learned  in  the  law. 
•■  My  dear  Sir,  Let  my  Lord  Coke  rest,  which  is,  as  you  know, 

more   than    hi-  wife    was    willing  to   do.      Lei    poor   henpecked 

I.oi<i  Coke  rest,  and  lei   as  Look  al  this  disease."    "Nay,  but 
liathew  Hale."     "  Blessings  on  the  memory  of  Sir  Mat  hew 

Hah-!  and  let  as  close  the  discussion,  or  in  another  n lenl 

w<-  shall  be  sent  hack  to  the  Pandects  of  Justinian,  even  if  we 
ipe  the  Tu  eh  <■  Table 


26  ADDRESS. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  I  have  just  one  remark  to  make  on  these 
cases  and  this  way  of  disposing  of  them.  It  is  your  plain  duty 
to  take  the  ground  that  medical  science  has  established  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt,  that  moral  insanity  and  these  blind 
impulses  which  the  law  so  confidently  ignores,  are  positive 
entities,  the  results  of  physical  disease. 

State  this  distinctly — hold  to  it  firmly  ;  and  then  for  what- 
ever the  law  may  do — the  law  is  responsible — we  are  clear. 

I  have  now,  Gentlemen,  completed  the  task  I  assigned  my- 
self, when  selecting  as  my  theme  the  relations  of  the  medical 
to  the  legal  profession,  and  the  duties  those  relations  involve. 

You  have  seen  that  these  duties  are  of  the  gravest  impor- 
tance— to  individuals,  to  Society,  to  your  profession,  and  to 
your  own  reputation.  If  in  detailing  them,  I  have  indulged 
in  a  strain  more  purely  didactic  than  you  are  accustomed  to 
on  occasions  like  the  present,  it  has  been  because  I  am  so 
anxious  that  the  graduates  of  this  College,  when  called  by 
their  country  to  the  most  important  of  their  public  duties, 
may  be  able  to  perform  them  with  pleasure  to  themselves, 
and  credit  to  the  time-honored  institution  to  whose  halls  I 
again  bid  you  Welcome. 


APPENDIX. 


The  ornament  here  spoken  of  is  a  mural  monument,  erected  in  the  College 
Hall  by  the  Faculty,  bearing  the  following  inscription : 

~SMC    MEA   ORNAMENTA    SUNT: 

GORHAM  BEALES,  FRANCIS  BULLOCK, 

WILLL\M  W.  CAHOON,  FRANCIS  P.  COLTON 

HENRY  W.  CURTIS,  ENOCH  GREEN, 

HORATIO  W.  GRIDLEY,  ELIHU  T.  HEDGES, 

HENRY  W.  PORTER,  A.  JUDSON  RAND, 

LEFROY  RAYENHILL,  DAVID  SELIGMAN, 

JOHN  SXOWDEX,  SIDNEY  B.  WORTH, 

STUDENTS  Of  THE  COLLEGE  OF  PHYSICIANS  AND  SURGEONS, 
DIED   OF  PESTDLENTIAL  DISEASE, 

WHILE  SERVING  IN  THE  PUBLIC  HOSPITALS  OF  NEW  YOKK. 

f  his  §MH 

IS    ERECTED   BY   Till-:   FACULTY 

THAT  THE  MEMORY  OF  THESE   MARTYRS  OF  HUMANITY  MAY  NOT  DIE  , 

AND  THAT,  TAUGHT   BY  THEIK  EXAMPLE. 

ff-fec  (Srabuatcs  of  the  College 
M  A  V     \  K  V  E  i:     EE8 1  'I'  A  '1'  E     To     1 1  A  X  A  R  D     1,1  F  E 

is    in i.   PXBFOBMANOfl   01 

PROFESSIONAL       DUTY. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing, 
as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

-*! 

iA 

& 

^ 

$j 

<* 

C2S(239)M100 

!>RA1053 

Gilman 


542 


